Despite veterans opposition, Senate Dems vow to pass budget deal

[juiceweezl]

I think we are almost on the same page..

My point is the benefits you get from a military retirement is not a "hand out" it was earned and for the government to piss backwards on what was promised is shitty at best.

I don't disagree with you but I hate the view it's a "hand out"

Look closely at the usage of words. "Promised" doesn't mean anything unless it's in a contract. If is promised in a contract, then no, it isn't a handout, and they should be paid in full as promised. If it's like most employee benefits, it's up to the employer's discretion. My company contributes to my retirement plan up to 15% of my salary...at their discretion. Each year, I may get 15%, I may get 10%, or I may not get anything. Nothing is "promised" nor is it earned any more or less each year. You have to take the job description/place of employment out of the discussion. That has no bearing on whether or not something is a handout. Make sense?

FTR, I wish they'd take care of our vets better. That's just not the issue that was being debated.

[Couver]

Look closely at the usage of words. "Promised" doesn't mean anything unless it's in a contract. If is promised in a contract, then no, it isn't a handout, and they should be paid in full as promised. If it's like most employee benefits, it's up to the employer's discretion. My company contributes to my retirement plan up to 15% of my salary...at their discretion. Each year, I may get 15%, I may get 10%, or I may not get anything. Nothing is "promised" nor is it earned any more or less each year. You have to take the job description/place of employment out of the discussion. That has no bearing on whether or not something is a handout. Make sense?

FTR, I wish they'd take care of our vets better. That's just not the issue that was being debated.

Promised is the exact word. If you look at military retirements you do "X" amount of years you get "X" amount of your base pay based on years service.

For them to change that for anybody but the people just joining is shitty at best. Again we agree.


IMO there should be the same system like in the civilian world. A member puts in a percentage of their pay and the GOV matches it. That way even if someone gets out after 8 or 12 years they have something put by.

[Forever_frost]

I was listening to the radio today on the way to the VA. Evidently this law doesn't even prevent a shutdown, it just fucks vets. That's it. It's the framework for another bill due later next year with the debt ceiling match coming in March or April or, if the Treasury does their sleight of hand, maybe the summer. Only thing this does is stick it to disabled veterans.

[Forever_frost]

Lawmakers admitted they made a mistake in cutting the retirement benefits of disabled veterans and vowed to work on a fix after passing the budget deal.

“This technical error certainly can, should and will be addressed,” Sen. Patty Murray, Washington Democrat and one of the authors of the budget deal, said Wednesday on the Senate floor.

The budget proposal will cut the cost-of-living adjustment to 1 percent below the consumer price index for military retirees under age 62. It is expected to save about $6 billion over 10 years and goes into effect in 2015. It seems lawmakers did not realize the cut would apply to all retirees, including those who had been medically retired due to an injury in the line of duty.

House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, Wisconsin Democrat, supports Ms. Murray’s push to undo the retirement cuts for disabled military retirees.

“Senator Murray intends to introduce legislation to exclude medically retired and survivor’s benefits from section 403 of the agreement. Chairman Ryan supports her proposal—and a pledge by the Senate and House Armed Services Committees to take a harder look at military-compensation reform,” according to at statement from Will Allison, a spokesman for Mr. Ryan.

Some lawmakers have said they will work in early 2014 to do away with the cuts for all military retirees. Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, New Hampshire Democrat, introduced legislation on Tuesday to replace the savings by closing offshore tax loopholes.

The Senate is expected to vote on the two-year, $1.012 trillion budget deal from Ms. Murray and Rep. Paul Ryan, Wisconsin Republican, on Wednesday afternoon.

© Copyright 2013 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

http://p.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/dec/18/budget-deal-author-sen-patty-murray-vows-fix-techn/

[helosailor]

Yeah, the Reid camp just put the kibosh on amendments. They would rather keep it so that the illegals can still get BILLIONS in illegal child tax credits. As far as all but one of the Senate democrats is concerned, every veteran can go get fucked.
Oh, and these 9 RINOs feel the same way...

[Forever_frost]

Very surprised Graham wasn't there with his boyfriend

[Moose242]

Social experiment. How will frost respond?

[Forever_frost]

And now this:

http://www.cbo.gov/budget-options/2013/44757

Restrict VA's Individual Unemployability Benefits to Disabled Veterans Who Are Younger Than the Full Retirement Age for Social Security

More than 3.4 million veterans with medical conditions or injuries that were incurred or worsened during active-duty service are receiving disability compensation from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). The amount of compensation they receive depends on the severity of their disabilities (which are generally assigned a single composite rating in an increment of 10 on a scale up to 100 percent), their number of dependents, and other factors—but not on their income or civilian employment history.

However, VA may supplement the regular disability compensation payments for veterans whom it deems unable to engage in substantial work. To qualify for those supplemental benefits, termed individual unemployability (IU) payments, veterans may not earn more than the federal poverty guidelines (commonly referred to as the federal poverty level) and generally must be rated between 60 percent and 90 percent disabled. A veteran qualifying for the IU supplement receives a monthly disability payment equal to the amount that he or she would receive if rated 100 percent disabled. In 2012, for those veterans who received the supplement, it boosted monthly VA disability payments by an average of about $1,500. The largest increases were paid to veterans rated 60 percent disabled: For them, the supplement raised the monthly payment by about $1,800, on average. In 2012, nearly 300,000 veterans received IU payments.

Under this option, VA would no longer make IU payments to veterans who are past Social Security’s full retirement age, which varies from 65 to 67 depending on beneficiaries’ birth year. Therefore, at the full retirement age, VA disability payments would revert to the amount associated with the rated disability level. By the Congressional Budget Office’s estimates, the savings from this option between 2015 and 2023 would be $15 billion.

VA’s regulations require that IU benefits be based on a veteran’s inability to maintain substantial employment because of the severity of a service-connected disability—and not because of age, voluntary withdrawal from work, or other factors. Consequently, a veteran may begin to receive IU payments, or continue to receive them, after the full retirement age for Social Security. In 2005 (the most recent year for which VA reports such statistics), more than 80,000 veterans who received the IU supplement, or about one-third of the total number in that year, were over the age of 65.

One rationale for this option is that most veterans who are older than Social Security’s full retirement age would not be in the labor force because of their age, so for those veterans, a lack of earnings would probably not be attributable to service-connected disabilities. In particular, in 2010, about 35 percent of men who were 65 to 69 years old were in the labor force, and that number dropped to 10 percent for those age 75 or older. In addition, most recipients of IU payments who are over age 65 would have other sources of income: They would continue to receive regular VA disability payments and might collect Social Security benefits as well. (Most recipients of the IU supplement begin collecting it in their 50s and probably have worked enough to earn Social Security benefits.)

An argument for retaining the current policy is that IU payments should be determined solely on the criterion of a veteran’s ability to work and that having age be a consideration would be unfair. In addition, some disabled veterans would find it difficult or impossible to replace the income provided by the IU supplement. If they had been out of the workforce for a long time, their Social Security benefits might be small, and they might not have been able to accumulate much in personal savings.

[Gasser64]

Ill agree with you there. I would rather see us curb spending on some of the retarded programs instead of Vet benefits.

I never understood how the US spent so damned much on defense and still is merely on pace with China.

The black budget is trillions. They spend money on weird sh1t like trying to get a guy to be able to form objects out of nothing, with only his mind

[Forever_frost]

Well, looks like the Congress caved a bit and extended that "every vet eligible for Tricare Prime beyond 40 miles gets kicked to standard" thing to 100 miles from a military base. I'll count it as a win as I'm back on Prime and back paying a monthly fee to have it. Next up, COLA and then this BS with IU.